Céad Míle Fáilte ~ A Hundred Thousand Welcomes!

Here we seek a rest in the shade, some cool water and a little kindness. This blog is dedicated to peace, truth, justice and a post- industrial, post-petroleum illumined world in spite of all odds against it. I very much like the line about the ancient knight (see poem below) "His helmet now shall make a hive for bees" It is reminiscent of "beating swords into ploughshares" a sentiment I heartily approve of. Thank you for visiting ~ I hope you return!

Waterfall Animation Pictures, Images and Photos

Tuesday, June 3, 2008

Dear Queen Elizabeth

The House of Commons (Great Britain) recently passed the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill which keeps the time limit on abortions at twenty-four weeks (in spite of hopes that it would be lowered), authorizes the creation of “savior siblings (brothers and sisters deliberately created in a lab solely for their organs to be harvested for use by the already-born), and allows for the creation of animal-human hybrids. Taki's Magazine has this article by Andrew Cusack up which begs the Crown to intervene and cast its veto for the first time in 320 years. It has the right, and the duty to so do.

If not over this soul - rending issue, when?

QUOTE Under the British constitution, a bill only becomes a law when it has received the assent of all three components of the British Parliament: the Commons, the Lords, and the Crown. The last time the Crown withheld consent was in 1708 when Queen Anne refused to sign the Scottish Militia Bill. Since that time, it has been an unspoken convention that should the Crown object to a piece of legislation, it should privately inform its ministers before the legislation is voted upon in order for it to be withdrawn, thus preventing the scandal of the Crown and the Commons appearing to be in disagreement. Despite this convention, however, the Crown still has the right to withhold consent, but merely neglects to exercise that right. UNQUOTE

A comment from a reader raises the question

QUOTE Is not the Queen of England also the head of the Church of England?
If so, then does she not have the obligation, from an ethical perspective, to oppose legislation that is contrary to dogma, morals or the natural law? UNQUOTE



No comments: